Precognition - The scientific view

Furthermore: 3.0 There is no subject-object separation. 4.0 Synchronicity, that is to say, timelessness reigns. If everything stands in relationship with everything in a non-local coherence, how can space actually exist? Our concept of space includes displacement and distance, distance of time and space. But if instant connectivity across any ever so great distance exists, time and space no longer exist! There is no past and no future if time doesn’t exist – only the present. There is also no relationship between cause and effect without time, ergo no causality. But to contemplate this is beyond a healthy common sense. The solution of this paradox is possible in spite of this, namely by accepting the following hypothesis . 4.0 The two-worlds theory We make the following assumptions in this theory: 1. We live and we know one biological reality of four dimensions in time and space and causality. 2. The ERP experiment reveals to us the presence of further dimensions: - The non-locality (spacelessness) - The synchronisation (timelessness) - The non-causality (no relationship between cause and effect). This world is defined as an energy-consciousness-reality relationship (EC). 3. Instead of the up to now four-dimensional world, we looked at it as three-dimensional until Einstein’s theory of relativity came along, we postulate a multi-dimensional world with 9 or 12 dimensions, something that individual scientists have already assumed. Important in regards to explaining the phenomenon of precognition is the acknowledgment of the dimension of timelessness or synchronisation, something C, G, Jung already talked about. The concepts of the two-world theory, they can now be scientifically explained, are certainly nothing new. We find the assumption of a timeless, that is to say, eternal world of the hereafter in all religions. The concept of “eternality” that we find in these beliefs completely coincide with the concept of timelessness. The fact that these concepts overtax our minds should not hinder us from accepting them. Because science’s history shows us that the human mind has always been overtaxed by new scientific insights. One only has to remember Copernicus or Galilei. The world is absurd, but it is not nonsensical. To assume that the world would have to be the way we presently can understand it is an unreasonable reductionism that is refuted by history.